Is there an inbetween

Is it that every 'now' we can either act for what is better or what is for worse, or is it that we can act in null; for what is neither?

Is that "neither" action a good or bad one?

Can you define "better" and "worse"? In other words, can you give the criterium on which these value judgments are based? On that all depends. For example, if you would set "homeostasis" as the ground value better and worse would be different things than if you set "being good towards your fellow man" as ground value.


Acting in null would only be possible in total nihilism, including a negation or neutralization of self-valuing - So I'd say acting in null would amount pretty quickly in death.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Can you define "better" and "worse"? In other words, can you give the criterium on which these value judgments are based? On that all depends. For example, if you would set "homeostasis" as the ground value better and worse would be different things than if you set "being good towards your fellow man" as ground value.


Acting in null would only be possible in total nihilism, including a negation or neutralization of self-valuing - So I'd say acting in null would amount pretty quickly in death.

I wouldn't put any specifics for what exactly is better... rather almost as if better is positive and worse is negative... and an action can only be a matter of addition or subtraction. It seems to me that there is no null act no act of non-acting... so in any situation we are either doing something that is good or something that is bad negative or positive...
In otehr words it seems there is no 0 in that mathematics of valuing... perhaps it is relative and you can see an act as null... but it would seem to me that with respect to what your golal is in performing an action you are either doing well or doing bad...IDK....

I just had this feeling the other day when I was about to do something that all things considered (literally, if i knew all) then wwhat I was doingright then was either good or bad... and every action I make is like a craps-shoot

Abstract wrote:

Is it that every 'now' we can either act for what is better or what is for worse, or is it that we can act in null; for what is neither?

Is that "neither" action a good or bad one?

Well, either way, we're constantly acting in some way or another. The way we interpret the significance of those actions could happen in any number of ways. Meaning like that is pretty free-floating.

Abstract wrote:

Is it that every 'now' we can either act for what is better or what is for worse, or is it that we can act in null; for what is neither?

Is that "neither" action a good or bad one?

How could we know that in advance?
If we're 'being' or 'doing' in the moment, within the Now, there is no judgment - true?

Or we can cease to 'act' - no movement. At times, this might be the only 'real' action...and more difficult than the other.

Most people do not act with respect to 'ends', they act "naturally", which is to say their activity (of thought or behavior) flows seamlessly from the instinctual-reactive being embedded within its environment/s. Reason, or self-perception, i.e. philosophy disrupts this process by forcing it to reflect pre-emptively upon its possible consequences.

Actions "in themselves" will always have many good and many bad results, since of course this good or bad depends entirely upon the perspective that observes and is affected by the action. I would say acting with "null effect" is impossible, but again that is only from a supposed objective vantage which is able to take into account all possible effects and influences. In reality, no such perspective exists, and the effects of actions always fall upon a particular range. So it would be equally as impossible to produce a null effect as it would for an action to produce no effect at all, but relatively speaking actions do produce "null" effects all the time, which is to say, insufficient or inadequate results.

Some of these inadequate results we classify as "negative". This depends entirely upon the range of our own purview and need.

Capable

Quote :

Most people do not act with respect to 'ends', they act "naturally", which is to say their activity (of thought or behavior) flows seamlessly from the instinctual-reactive being embedded within its environment/s.

If I catch your meaning here, what you're basically saying is that most people act without awareness - that is, they react according to their instincts and emotions. Aside from that, I think that most or many people DO act with respect to ends, insofar as they have a motive or a goal in mind - the 'end' is usually paramount within their actions.

Quote :

Reason, or self-perception, i.e. philosophy disrupts this process by forcing it to reflect pre-emptively upon its possible consequences.

Are you equating self-perception as reason? Self-perception may be quite delusional, narcissistic, and have nothing to do with right reason.
I wouldn't necessarily say that philosophy, in and of itself disrupts, that process - unless the individual him/her -self is thoughtful and ethical...and one need not be a philosopher for that. Have you ever been to ilp where the herd rises up? In what way does 'philosophy' in that case, reflect upon consequences? Philosophy is simply a tool. It is the sane individual working in harmony with philosophy, caring about and seeking what is truth and wisdom, who is capable of achieving a true perspective of consequences. And of course, he must also realize that this is tied up with his own personal psychology.

Quote :

Actions "in themselves" will always have many good and many bad results, since of course this good or bad depends entirely upon the perspective that observes and is affected by the action.

Actions "in themselves" are neutral, wouldn't you think? Just like a work of art on a wall is neutral or just "is" until there is a perceiver. No?
I prefer the terms 'positive' and 'negative.
But I will agree with you that everything is a matter of perspective. The way in which we 'see' something determines our actions or inactions and our own subjective reality - which may not be based in reality but illusion or at the very least, only an unclear, incomplete picture.

Quote :

I would say acting with "null effect" is impossible, but again that is only from a supposed objective vantage which is able to take into account all possible effects and influences.

Do you mean acting with no attempt to achieve an effect (as being detached) or do you mean an action in which there would be/could be no effect?

So I think what you're saying here is that you realize that all possible effects and influences could never be taken into account? I agree.

Quote :

In reality, no such perspective exists, and the effects of actions always fall upon a particular range. So it would be equally as impossible to produce a null effect as it would for an action to produce no effect at all, but relatively speaking actions do produce "null" effects all the time, which is to say, insufficient or inadequate results.

I'm confused. Do you see a distinction between a 'null effect' and 'an action to produce no effect'?

Quote :

Some of these inadequate results we classify as "negative". This depends entirely upon the range of our own purview and need.

Inadequate as meaning 'not what we were hoping for'? But I agree with the second part.

Since the topic of this thread is "Is There an In-Between', that would probably be a good place to start in terms of changing one's perspective...instead of leaning too far positive or negative since both are judgment calls. An In-Between gives one the opportunity to be balanced and to 'see' more of what actually may be there or 'is' there. But that in itself is an ongoing practice - balancing all or trying to see all at the same time...sort of like seeing the trees as forest - and not the forest as trees. Perhaps that's simply semantics.

Abstract...

Quote :

I just had this feeling the other day when I was about to do something that all things considered (literally, if i knew all) then wwhat I was doingright then was either good or bad... and every action I make is like a craps-shoot

But if, like you say, you knew all, then every action you made would not necessarily have to be like a crap-shoot, Abtract. If you tried to base your actions within the parameters of "to do no harm" and self-awareness, how could they come down to either good or bad? The in-between to me is that place - that moment - where actions are decided - based on what we see and what we determine to do. It balances cause and effect.

That to me is not a crap shoot but an autonomous willing or striving, capable of affecting positive results.